- (1.) The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act1), for opinion to this Court : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, pronotes of the value of Rs. 18,000 executed in favour of Ku. Vandana Kedia recovered from the room of Smt. Prakashwati Devi Kedia constituted investments made by the assessee-HUF? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, investments of Rs. 20,000 represented by the pronotes executed in favour of Smt. Janki Devi and Rs. 27,500 in the pronotes executed in favour of Sri Satya Narain Agarwal were the investments of the assessee-HUF ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, pronotes recovered from the custody of Smt. Prakashwati Devi Kedia could be considered for assessment in the case of assessee-HUF ?
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under : The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The applicant is HUF. A search was conducted in the premises of the applicant-HUF on llth May, 1973. A larger number of pronotes amounting to Rs. 2,25,500 were recovered from the premises occupied by the members of the applicant-HUF, namely, Smt. Prakashwati Devi Kedia, the mother of the Karta of the applicant-HUF. In the present case, we are concerned with three pronotes of the value of Rs. 18,000 executed in the name of Vandana Kedia, Rs. 20,000 executed in favour of Smt. Janki Devi and Rs. 27,500 executed in favour of Sri Satya Narain Agarwal, which were recovered from the custody of Smt. Prakashwati Kedia. The ITO as well as the appellate authority have held these pronotes as belonging to the applicant-HUF.
(3.) Heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned Counsel for the applicant and, Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.;